Pelosi: Hey, better yet, how about a trip to Iran?
posted at 10:08 am on April 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
This is the one case of fascist outreach I’m keen to see them pursue, so luscious would the blowback be. She needs absolution before she can meet with Holocaust deniers, though, so she ain’t going unless Tom Lantos is going. Lantos says he’d do it in a heartbeat, so our waiting for that much anticipated Ahmadinejad/Pelosi photo op might soon be over.
Don’t worry – she’ll be tough.
“I find the president of Iran’s remarks to be so repulsive that they are outside the circle of civilized human behavior,” Pelosi said, referring to Ahmadinejad’s past comments that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map and his questioning of the existence of the Holocaust.
“But a person of Mr. Lantos’ stature and personal experience is saying that — even as a Holocaust survivor and even recognizing the outrageous statements of the president of Iran — it’s important to have dialogue. I think that speaks volumes.”…
Pelosi said that throughout the congressional delegation’s recent Middle East trip, “every place we went we had a constant message: the safety and security of Israel, fighting terrorism.”
“There was, of course, a shadow over all of it, Iran: Iran’s support of terrorist groups is something that must be stopped,” she said. “Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon is something that must not happen and we must stop them with the strongest of diplomatic measures.”
I’m exhausted by these identity politics games where one’s actions are valid or invalid depending upon how many members of an aggrieved group are on one’s side. Conservatives do it too; that’s what the Fox/CBC/Obama pas de trois over the Democratic primary debate was about. In this case Pelosi’s willing to violate constitutional law and American political custom by meeting with terrorists, but she’s not willing to meet with a bottom-feeding, cretinous Holocaust denier for fear of offending Jews. How does she negotiate the latter to facilitate the former? Simple: she takes Lantos with her. As a victim he’s beyond criticism, and thus so is she by association. That, of course, makes it a game of moral-authority poker where, in order to challenge her, we have to bet some “chips” of our own. So, fine — I’ll see her Tom Lantos and raise her Elie Wiesel. It’s disgusting, but it’s a game they love to play, including/especially with Iraq per Moron Dowd and her beatification of nascent Truther and shameless Chavez-hugger Cindy Sheehan.
Anyway, she’s not the only one capable of embarrassing the other side politically, needless to say. If I were Bush, I’d be marshalling the latest burgeoning evidence of Iranian fingerprints on Iraqi jihadi EFPs and holding onto it for some rainy day afternoon when Pelosi’s in Tehran showing off her plastic smile.
Update: There are constitutional ways of trying to initiate dialogue between the U.S. and Iran without deputizing yourself Democratic Party Secretary of State.
Update: Nice catch by K-Lo. Pelosi agrees with us about it being bad form to meet with the enemy. She just defines “enemy” differently.
Update: Another good point by Bob Owens, which ties back oddly enough into the Fox/Democrat debate standoff. Like I said, they just define enemy differently:
When Democrat Presidential candidates Clinton, Obama and Edwards dropped out of the Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate that was going to be co-sponsored by Fox News, many liberals crowed over the decision. It is their contention that Fox News is an “illegitimate” news source (or a “propaganda machine,” or not even a news outlet at all. Someone should tell Nielsen), and that if these candidates had answered the questions provided by the CBCI in a televised debate on Fox News, it would “legitimize” the network…
Apparently, the double standard is this:
Liberals are solidly behind the idea of boycotting a news network to avoid giving them legitimacy, but they are in favor of defying their own government’s foreign policy to lend legitimacy to yet another terrorist state that has sponsored attacks on our allies and are actively engaged in trying to kill U.S. soldiers.
Update: I guess I should probably link this, too.
Related Posts:








Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sweet. How sweet it is.
Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM
This.
When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM
ear relevant…
driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.
kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM
This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.
savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.
However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)
What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.
In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.
It’s not socialism. It’s worse.
EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”
jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM
A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.
(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)
AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM
I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.
Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.
tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .
BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM
Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…
Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM
Perfect!
lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.
bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM
If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!
SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM
If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)
He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.
Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2